Climate change and development (Final version as delivered) Address by Bekele Geleta, Secretary General, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies Houses of Parliament, Palace of Westminster, London, 18 March 2009 It is a great honour to be here today, in this most hallowed of places that has not just seen so much history but has, through the ages, often shaped it with such profound impact on the world. We are here to discuss a subject of tremendous importance and for which the world needs - as never before - the best of wisdom, leadership and partnership from the British people and their government. In 1992, when world leaders signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, they expected to solve the cause of the problem: the emissions of greenhouse gases. The Kyoto Protocol did not see the need to involve assistance organizations such as the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. Seventeen years later, as our presence here today unfortunately shows, the world as a whole has failed to stop climate change from becoming a climate crisis. Furthermore, the latest scientific projections suggest that we are moving fast towards a climate catastrophe, if radical mitigation and adaptation actions are not taken. My colleague from the United Nations, John Holmes, has eloquently detailed the humanitarian consequences of climate change. Only a few months ago, we wrote together to the UNFCC: in the coming decades, climate change is expected to exacerbate the risks of disasters, not only from more frequent and intense hazard events, but also though greater vulnerability to the existing hazards. 1
That future is with us already. All countries are prone to natural hazards and more than half the world s population is highly exposed to at least one hazard. Nowadays, the majority of disasters 70 per cent at least - are weather related, and this proportion continues to increase. Recorded disasters triggered by natural hazards worldwide increased from around 78 per annum in the 1970s to more than 350 by 2000 and are growing at an average annual rate of more than eight per cent since then. The number of affected people per 100,000 population doubled from 18 in the late 1970s to 36 in the late 1990s. Overall economic losses have increased, in constant dollar terms, from an annual average of fewer than 4 billion US dollars in the 1950s to some 12 billion US dollars in the 1970s and to more than 83 billion US dollars since 2000. However, these aggregate figures hide important disparities in disaster impacts. An overwhelming majority of those affected globally - about 98 per cent - are from developing countries, with about a tenth from the least developed countries. More than 90 per cent of deaths occur in developing countries, with more than a quarter in the least developed countries alone. People in low-income countries are 20 times more likely to die from natural hazards than those in high-income countries. Natural disasters attack the poor at several levels: they interrupt income, reduce productive and personal assets, destroy essential public infrastructure, and heighten social and economic uncertainty. Typically, most losses in developing countries are not insured driving affected communities deeper into poverty. The impact of disasters is also genderised: the life expectancy of women is lowered more than in men, and the stronger the disaster, the greater 2
is the gender gap. The well-being of women directly affects the survival, health and nutrition of their children. Thus there are long-term irreversible consequences on human capital in poor countries. Climate change is projected to increase disaster risks through altering average climatic conditions, creating greater climate variability, increasing the magnitude and frequency of extreme events, and generating new threats in regions with no previous experience of them. Climate change could have a significant impact on associated humanitarian costs with authoritative projections suggesting a 16-fold increase by 2030. These acute disaster impacts do not take into account the other protracted consequences of climate change due to environmental degradation. These include potential conflicts over scarce resources, declines in agricultural productivity and water and food security, an upsurge in disease and the forced displacement of people. The numbers alone do not convey the starkness of daily realities. The Red Cross Red Crescent is the world s largest humanitarian assistance network with a presence in communities large and small across 186 countries. Our tens of millions of members and volunteers bear daily witness to the disastrous impacts of climate change. We see the pain of those who lose their loved ones and their hard-earned assets and livelihoods, and the anxiety of those forced to leave their homes for an uncertain place and future. Never before have we been so busy as now with weather related disasters in every continent. Of course, we are getting better and better at responding to disasters because, unfortunately, practice makes perfect. However, the Red Cross Red Crescent believes that much greater importance should be placed on efforts to prevent or reduce disasters and their impacts. 3
This is fundamentally a task for long-term development, and I would like to focus my remarks on this, to complement John Holmes observations. The development response to climate change must address both climate change adaptation as well as mitigation. Our starting point must be the requirement for fairness. Although climate change affects the wealthy and the impoverished alike, it is the poor people in the poorer countries that bear the brunt of its impacts and have the least coping capacities. And as, historically, the poor have contributed least to the problem in the first place, it is only right that their needs are given serious priority. This is not a question of buck-passing or blaming and shaming, but a matter of morality as well as practical necessity. A global problem of unprecedented magnitude such as climate change will not be resolved without global co-operation on an unprecedented scale. The world s 2.6 billion poorest people must not be further victimised or alienated, but instead become part of the solution. This means that there can be no wavering of global commitments to poverty reduction and sustainable development, as that is our best longterm guarantee of a world that will have the essential capacities and resilience to tackle this grave threat to our collective future. The implication is that we must review our development strategies for the age of climate change. The Millennium Development Goals have served us well in focusing effort on essential human needs - and good progress has been made. But we know that not all its targets will be achieved fully and everywhere by the target date of 2015. We should not wait till then to revise, update and extend the MDG aspirations. 4
In modernizing our framework for development for the world of today and tomorrow, we must put equity and sustainability at the centre of our considerations and re-visit our strategies for economic growth. As Mahatma Gandhi said, the Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. The current financial crisis has illustrated only too painfully what this means. There are some direct parallels with the climate crisis. In re-visiting development to integrate climate adjustment measures, there are three critical questions to tackle. First, how do we change the way we live? If climate change is the consequence of human behaviour, then it is only when this is transformed into positive human actions for mitigation here, there, and everywhere - that we will really make headway. In the Red Cross Red Crescent, we call this mobilizing the power of humanity. In the face of climate change, we must commit to do this now, and in the years ahead, on a scale that the world has never seen before. In practical terms this means promoting social responsibility and influencing the different ways that people live around the world. This includes what they give and take from the surrounding environment, and how they relate to each other within families, communities, and nations, and between nations. Of course, the choices made are dependent on whether or not people have the capacities to choose based on the knowledge, skills, and resources that they can access. Therefore the task of development is to widen those capacities so that people can choose to live in a way that is safer for them and more respectful of the environment. 5
Second, how do we resource the necessary changes? Developing countries will need significant investment for transition to low-carbon growth paths and to enable them to adapt to changes that are already happening. Recent estimates suggest that by 2030, financial flows to developing countries would need to be around 100 billion US dollars a year for mitigation and around 50 billion US dollars for adaptation. This is far more than the current spending of just over half a billion US dollars and, while overseas development assistance could be more generous than at present, aid is clearly not the substantive answer. The Kyoto Protocol s Clean Development Mechanism and other carbon market mechanisms must be enabled to boost adaptation funding directly for developing countries. But even that will not be enough. A significant share of the financing gap will have to come from the private sector capitalising on the potential of new green technologies and businesses. The role of development should be to encourage the conditions that will enable innovation to occur within developing countries including through strategically-directed programmes on knowledge and technology transfer, and further to agree fair and balanced agreements on trade and intellectual property rights, and to encourage both South- South and South-North cooperation. Third, how do we modernize international development cooperation? Despite long-standing concerns, overseas development assistance funding and structures remain polarised between humanitarian and development budget-lines - making it difficult to design and deliver holistic programmes that are problem-oriented rather than classification-driven. We see this in the Red Cross Red Crescent, which is widely recognized as a humanitarian disaster response network but is not as well-known for its achievements as a development partner that is permanently present in communities before, during and after a crisis. 6
While initiatives such as on good humanitarian donorship and the Paris and Accra agenda on aid effectiveness are most welcome, the humanitarian/development divide remains as deep as ever. Climate change knows no such boundaries. The forthcoming DFID White Paper s promising title of...assuring our common future provides an opportunity to do just that through a combined humanitarian and development approach. Before concluding let me turn to climate change adaptation and go back to disasters, to comment on disaster response and disaster risk. First, on disaster response. As said already, climate change is resulting not only in more hydro-meteorological disasters, but that these are occurring in new locations, often with greater impacts, affecting more people. We must do much more to prepare ourselves. But we must also realize that there will be more disasters where international disaster assistance is needed and that this will include countries that have not previously anticipated such a need. Currently, most states figure that they will sort out their mechanisms for dealing with international assistance when the time comes. Very few have comprehensive legal and institutional mechanisms for facilitating or regulating international assistance, or even for making the decision that such help is needed. Unfortunately, this ad hoc approach is increasingly inadequate to deal with the very real complications of international assistance. Unnecessary bureaucratic barriers are making the delivery of humanitarian aid slower, more expensive and less effective than it should be. At the same time, the absence of adequate domestic mechanisms to coordinate and monitor international assistance creates problems of quality and complementarity with domestic efforts. The IFRC s research in more than two dozen recent cases has clearly demonstrated the importance of "legal preparedness" for disasters. 7
You are familiar with the Geneva Conventions on international humanitarian law, which regulate conduct during armed conflicts. The Red Cross Red Crescent is now investing considerable effort in an international disaster response law programme to help governments to prepare themselves before disasters strike. The international disaster response law guidelines were unanimously adopted by the states parties to the Geneva Conventions at the 30th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in 2007, and were endorsed by the UN General Assembly last year. It is now time for them to be used at the national level. Turning next to disaster risk reduction. Disaster risk reduction is not just the first line of defence against the impacts of climate change. It is also the first line of positive adaptation to the climate change that is already with us. As the saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. In fact, it is worth far more. Available studies show that for every pound sterling invested in hazard risk reduction you can reduce from three to ten pounds in disaster losses. This must be good news for the British tax payers eager to see good returns on their investment in overseas assistance. Just as governments are now thinking of establishing binding legal bases for national greenhouse gas emission targets, perhaps they could do the same for investment in risk reduction. For example, and building on the initiative of pioneering nations such as the UK, could we not propose that governments dedicate the equivalent of at least 20-25 per cent of the funds spent in disaster response management to investment in risk reduction and risk sharing mechanisms? In the Red Cross Red Crescent, we have made disaster risk reduction a top priority in our forward strategy. We can point towards many 8
examples to show that risk reduction really does work, in practice, to save lives and protect livelihoods. In West Africa, the Red Cross Red Crescent collaborates with government meteorological services to interpret complex scientific information on weather patterns, and then warns communities when heavy rainfall is expected so they will be ready for it. The Solomon Island Red Cross is documenting traditional knowledge from elders on planting seasons and their relationship with dangerous winds so as to protect agriculture. Bangladesh Red Crescent volunteers used megaphones to advise people what to do when Cyclone Sidr loomed in 2007. Though more than three thousand people died, this was far fewer than the 138,000 deaths in a cyclone of similar intensity in 1991. The Colombian Red Cross work has led to the creation of the National Board for Climate Change. In numerous other places, Red Cross and Red Crescent volunteers are undertaking, without much fanfare, local actions such as protecting water wells before anticipated flooding, planting trees against landslides or desertification; constructing small-scale drainage works to protect their homes and roads; cleaning stagnant pools against disease-bearing insect plagues, and setting up local committees to spread life-saving knowledge or skills such first aid. This is climate change adaptation and mitigation in the most practical sense. It shows that while the climate change phenomenon is already changing our world, we are not helpless or passive victims. And it shows that leaders and decision makers can learn from such a grassroots approach. Before I arrived in London this week, I visited disaster-affected communities in China, India, Pakistan and East Africa. I saw again how floods, earthquakes and drought can devastate lives and livelihoods and perpetuate a cycle of dependence and misery. I also saw tremendous 9
human dignity, compassion and a determination to build more resilient communities to better withstand the changing climate. Today, I bring a message from these communities. Their situation is worsening. Their lives are becoming harder. And they fear that things will not get better unless governments are prepared to act. The plea from disaster-affected people worldwide is a simple one: Act now. Act today. We cannot wait for tomorrow. This will require creativity as well as courage from leaders of governments, the corporate sector and civil society alike. It will require a greater focus on equity and a concerted effort to limit excess and reduce wastefulness. Only then we can say that we are taking the needs of the world s 2.6 billion poorest people into consideration. The Red Cross Red Crescent asks that the voices of the world s most vulnerable people be heard at the highest levels. I ask that their experiences and needs are taken into account by the negotiators heading towards Copenhagen. And I wish these negotiators the will and wisdom necessary to reach an agreement that is not only workable and effective, but which is based on the reality of climate change as experienced by the very poorest. Or in the words of Winston Churchill, a great member of this very House: It s no use saying we are doing our best ; you must succeed in doing what is necessary. 10